[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION. "direct child" or "descendant"?
Hi Lofton, Fine with me. -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com Sunday, September 4, 2005, 4:07:07 PM, Lofton wrote: LH> I looked again, and am not entirely happy with option 3. I LH> think Iunderstand what we're getting at. I'll propose closure of LH> thisquestion, with the below new wording for the bits of 3.2.1.5. LH> Old (1st CD) wording: LH> [[[ Viewer Behavior. Unlike other application structures, LH> 'grnode' is notinteractive. It does not receive mouse events like LH> other application structures. The content of a 'grnode' can LH> howeverbe interactive if that content is a direct child of a LH> 'grobject', 'para' or 'subpara'. Additionally, if a mouse LH> event istriggered on the geometry of a 'grnode', an ancestor node LH> may respond to the event if that ancestor node is of type LH> 'grobject','para' and 'subpara'. See the Event interface for LH> more information regarding mouse events. LH> ]]] LH> Proposed new wording: LH> [[[ Viewer Behavior. Unlike other application structures, LH> 'grnode' is notinteractive; i.e., it does not receive mouse LH> events. If a mouseevent is triggered on the geometry of a LH> 'grnode', an ancestor node oftype 'grobject', 'para' or 'subpara' LH> instead may respond to the event.Therefore, the content of a LH> 'grnode' could effectively appear to beinteractive, for example, LH> if the 'grnode' were a sole direct child of a'grobject', 'para' or LH> 'subpara'. See the Event interface for moreinformation regarding LH> mouse events. LH> ]]] LH> Okay? LH> -Lofton. LH> At 07:22 AM 8/24/2005 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: LH> At 10:37 AM 8/24/2005 +0200,Dieter Weidenbrück wrote: LH> option 3 LH> That's the way I was leaning. But I have thought some more sinceyesterday... LH> One oddity of Option 3: clicking gn1 would cause the LH> selection ofgo1 in both the direct-child and descendant examples. LH> But in thedescendant example, clicking gn2 would also cause LH> selection of go1, andgn0 would also cause selection of go1, and LH> indeed if there were graphicsinside go1 but outside of gn0, those LH> would also cause selection ofgo1. So if we go with "descendant", LH> then yes, the contentof gn1 is interactive, but it is not LH> apparently synonymous with a singleinteractive object ... it is LH> just a piece in a bigger interactive object/ context. LH> Whereas if we go with "direct child", then gn1 looks like LH> aninteractive object -- clicking within gn1 selects go1, and LH> clickinganywhere outside of gn1 does NOT select go1. LH> So what are we really trying to express in that 3.2.1.5 wording? LH> -Lofton. >> -----OriginalMessage----- >> From: Lofton Henderson[mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:45 AM >> To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION. "direct child" or"descendant"? >> >> >> 3.2.1.5. Grnode >> ---------- >> "...'grnode' is not interactive; i.e., it does not receive >> mouse events. >> The content of a 'grnode' can however be interactive if it >> [the grnode] is a direct child of a 'grobject', 'para' or'subpara'". >> >> Do we really mean "direct child"? 5.7.10 says,"An >> application structure of type 'grnode' or 'layer' cannot be a >> target of a mouse event. Instead, if the mouse pointer was >> over a 'grnode' when the event occurred; its closest ancestor >> object of type 'grobject', 'para' or 'subpara' will be >> designated as the target element." >> >> I guess the wording of 3.2.1.5 was chosen that way so that >> the containing 'grobject' would tightly contain the 'grnode', >> like this >> >> grnobject go1 >> grnode gn1 >> [...] >> /grnode >> /grobject >> >> and look effectively to be the same object as the containing >> 'grobject'. As opposed to gn1 in something like this: >> >> grobject go1 >> grnode gn0 >> [...] >> grnodegn1 >> [...] >> /grnode >> grnodegn2 >> [...] >> /grnode >> /grnode >> /grobject >> >> Opt.1: leave it as is. >> Opt.2: change to something like, "...can effectivelyappear >> to be interactive if it is a direct child of ..." >> Opt.3: change to something like, "...can effectivelyappear >> to be interactive if it is a descendant of ..." >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Lofton.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]